2014 Oscar Predictions

The Oscars played a significant part in my obsession with the medium of cinema in my formative years. I think the experience is more or less similar for a lot of people in my generation, particularly those who live outside of major film markets, where awards can look like a real barometer of quality at a distance, to people of a certain age. The Oscars also played an equally important part in my becoming a blogger and in gaining some of the opportunities that I did. But I've moved on, not because I'm looking at such awards from above or because I condescend to those who care about them -- I'd be the first defend the importance and influence of the Oscars -- but because my taste and the Academy's has been so drastically different over the years that I've grown weary of caring and thinking about them. I take no joy in writing about the machinations of "awards season" if I don't find the films or the discourse surrounding them appealing, and frankly that discourse has become aggressive and toxic to the point of complete alienation. I used to feel that the shenanigans about awards were the tasty, spicy side dish to the cinema's delicious main course, but that side dish is rotten now and tastes bitter. I've stopped mulling it over.

Under the Skin, my favourite English-language film of the year, was completely shut out.

Still, one Oscar column a year is something I can handle, and because I'm a betting man, I'll make this one post about predictions. Either this is an uncharacteristically tight year in too many races, or my obliviousness to the whole charade has kept me in the dark about what pundits are feeling confident about. Either way, put your money on these predictions at your own peril! If you're interested in knowing what I would have voted for were I given a ballot, your answer is here. If you're interested in knowing how well I did on my predictions last year, I went 17/21, having not made predictions in the three short categories. Without further ado...

Adapting le Carré in A Most Wanted Man

*This piece was originally published at The Film Experience as part of the Team FYC Series, in which the website's contributors make a case for an under the radar candidate for Oscar nomination.

Anton Corbijn’s latest film, A Most Wanted Man, is one of the year’s best American films. It’s the type of work that is elevated above the trappings of its overly familiar genre with superb performances and intelligent observations on the real world conditions that give birth to its story. It is arguably the smartest film made about America’s increasingly troubled relationship with, and its definition of, terrorism. Yet, it is surprising to compare the film's screenplay, penned by Andrew Bovell, to its original source, the 2008 novel of the same name by John le Carré, and notice the dramatic improvement that the adaptation has made to the text.

With densely plotted novels, particularly in the espionage genre, one of the biggest challenges of adaptation is the careful omission of narrative threads without disrupting the harmony or logic of the story. Le Carré’s book is one of his lesser works, a straightforward piece about Issa (Gregoriy Dobrygin), a Chechen fugitive in Hamburg, whose history of being tortured in his homeland is sufficient cause for authorities (German and American) to assume ties with terrorist organizations. Issa’s story is intertwined to three other protagonists who are afforded equal attention in the novel: a banker named Tommy Brue (Willem Defoe), a lawyer named Annabel Richter (Rachel McAdams) and a spy named Gunther Bachmann (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

Bovell and Corbijn remove almost the entirety of Annabel and Tommy’s back stories and shift the focus of the narrative entirely, tightening the scope of the film but lending it more political resonance. They introduce Dr. Abdullah (Homayoun Ershadi) in the opening scenes instead of the latter half and make several crucial decisions that don’t just improve upon the book, but create thematic subtexts that were absent originally.

Two examples illustrate this best: first, the film eliminates the two most memorable exchanges of dialogue from the book: Bachmann’s Cantata, a long manifesto about the history of Hamburg and how it is interwoven with terrorism in today’s world. In this belligerent speech’s stead, the film relies on the subtlety of Hoffman’s performance and his dejected, knowing gaze, always aware that the anti-terrorist empire is one moment of misjudgement away from complete collapse. One memorable monologue is taken away; a delicate, slow-burner of a performance takes its place to more lingering effect. (Chris Ryan of Grantland has written about this omission at length here.) The second piece of dialogue is the book's finale, a rather explicit definition of extraordinary rendition delivered in lecture form. The film's silent ending is sublime in comparison.

The second example is the addition of Abdullah’s son, Jamal (Mehdi Dehbi), completely absent from the book in the present form. A secret collaborator with Bachmann’s espionage team, Jamal’s character does as much as Issa’s in painting a nuanced portrait of how Muslims as a whole are misunderstood in the West with regards to their views on terrorism. He is less a symbol of tolerance and more a complex figure of conflicted sentiments: peace activist on the one hand, guilt-ridden son on the other. As a smooth, perfectly paced thriller, the screenplay is structurally robust and extremely entertaining, but the sharp commentary on America’s convoluted, haphazard foreign policies – timely as ever in the wake of the release of the torture reports – create a text that is nothing short of outstanding.

Visual Effects in Under the Skin

*This piece was originally published at The Film Experience as part of the Team FYC Series, in which the website's contributors make a case for an under the radar candidate for Oscar nomination.

"Generally speaking, if you drop the adjective Best and replace it with Most, you come to a better understanding of what the Academy Awards are often about.”

That statement is taken from Nick Davis’ review of The Lives of Others written several years ago, but it’s a sentiment I have not only shared, but have come to recognize as the defining element of my relationship with the Oscars, responsible for the bulk of my disagreements with their choices. Nick called the application of his theory to the visual effects category “self-explanatory” and it’s hard to disagree with him. How often do we find nominees in this category that subtly work their visual effects into the narrative? Filmmakers who employ effects as a storytelling device rather than a show-stopping juggernaut of colors and flying objects? This isn’t to say that some worthy work hasn’t been rewarded in the process. No one can argue with the impressive quality of what is on display in Gravity, but the emphasis is on “on display.” Visual effects in Cuaron’s films are equivalent to an oiled up body in a tight thong, flexing muscles in your face, and that type of “most” visual effects is what the Academy has come to reward repeatedly, even when the results aren’t quite as impressive or innovative, which brings me to this year.

None of the films that are bound to be nominated in this category will have imagery that is as iconic or memorable as the understated work in Under the Skin.  Yet, Jonathan Glazer’s masterpiece – his third from three tries – faces two very big hurdles on its road to nomination. First, the film isn’t in the Academy’s wheelhouse or likely to get any other nominations. Second, that the visual effects aren’t showy. In the words of its VFX supervisor, Dominic Parker, the techniques “are supporting the film, not the main event.”

Technically, Under the Skin isn’t doing anything that Kubrick didn’t do fifty years ago; one particular sequence – the disintegration of one of Alien’s preys, which is the only colourful segment in the film – unmistakably mirrors the colored vortex sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey. But the application, completely at the service of the story and actively designed to go unnoticed, is what makes the experience memorable.

The plain black void in which the alien’s victims, lit in blue hues, float endlessly until their moment of implosion is the year’s most terrifying, unshakable imagery. The sense of inescapable horror that these sequences create is precisely due to their sleek emptiness. Similarly, the emotional gravity of the final moment, a literal stripping to bare the soul, or lack thereof, is conveyed with such weight because of the simplicity of the non-obstructive effects. Still, one need not look further than the film’s opening "creation" scene to see the genius of the effects. Glazer and his team trimmed down the concept of this scene from the formation of a full human body to just the eye and ended up with sheer minimalist brilliance. The gradual, shocking revelation of what it is we’re witnessing is the most wondrous sensation in the film, a moment of genuinely awe-inspiring quality. Here’s hoping Academy voters take note.

Honouring Jean-Claude Carrière

*A version of this piece was originally publish at The Film Experience, to commemorate Jean-Claude Carrière's receiving of an honorary Academy Award.

Generally speaking, I am opposed to the idea of past winners receiving honorary Oscars. This, after all, is an honor bestowed on a recipient whose career not only merits the attention, but also lacks it. When there are so many giants of the medium that the Academy hasn't recognized, why double dip with already rewarded names? But there is something incredibly satisfying about seeing three time nominee and one time winner, Jean-Claude Carrière, receive an honorary Oscar this year. His is one of the most fascinating careers in film history, and one that has lasted six decades and spanned several countries and languages.

Carrière started as a novelist, his first work published in 1957, five years prior to winning an Oscar in the best short film category for Heaureux Anniversaire. In the intervening fifty-three years between his two golden statues, he's worked with filmmakers as varied as Jean-Luc Godard, Andrzej Wajda, Louis Malle, Jonathan Glazer and, most recently, Abbas Kiarostami who penned him a short but memorable role in Certified Copy.

His most fruitful collaboration, one that still arguably defines his career still today, was cultivated in the 1960s. When Luis Buñuel asked producer Serge Silberman to find him a young French writer with whom he could collaborate on an adaptation of Diary of a Chambermaid, he was introduced to several screenwriters at the 1963 Cannes Film Festival. Carrière was the one who hit it off and went on to co-write the film with Buñuel. They partnered up together five more times after that: Belle de Jour, The Milky Way, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Phantom of Liberty and the surrealist master's final film, That Obscure Object of Desire. Quite a streak!

Final 2013 Oscar Predictions

Best Picture

Will Win: Gravity
Could Win: 12 Years a Slave
Should Win: 12 Years a Slave
Should Have Been Here: Museum Hours
My Nomination Prediction Score: 8/9 (Missed: Philomena)

Best Director

Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)
Could Win: Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave)
Should Win: Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave)
Should Have Been Here: Rithy Panh (The Missing Picture)
My Nomination Prediction Score: 3/5 (Missed: Nebraska, Wolf of Wall Street)

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Will Win: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club)
Could Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street)
Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (The Wolf of Wall Street)
Should Have Been Here: Paul Rudd (Prince Avalanche)
My Nomination Prediction Score: 4/5 (Missed: Christian Bale in American Hustle)

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Will Win: Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)
Could Win: -
Should Win: Amy Adams (American Hustle)
Should Have Been Here: Adele Exarchopoulos (Blue Is the Warmest Colour)
My Nomination Prediction Score: 4/5 (Missed: Meryl Streep in August: Osage County)

Getting Around to Argo... Again

With Ben Affleck's Argo poised to take the best picture Oscar home, I decided to give it another go. If you've read this blog during the past year, you know that this film was on my radar long before it came out and I was very anxious about it because of the Iranian connection and the event it covers. I even reviewed the trailer!

I also reviewed the film after its release, when I was disappointed by its lack of cogent politics but impressed by its seamless production values. Today, in my piece at The Film Experience, I've discussed the reasons, merited and unmerited, for the film's success on the awards circuit and my feelings about it. Be sure to check it out here.

Also, if you look to the sidebar on the right, you'll see a new addition under 'The Film Experience by Nathaniel Rogers' that takes you directly to my posts on his website.

Oscar's Best Short Film Nominees

At The Film Experience, I've discussed the ten films that are nominated for best live action short and best animated short at the Oscars this year. Both categories have their fair share of duds, but they also include a couple of films that are truly Oscar-worthy. You can read about the animated ones here, and the live action ones here; Join in the conversation with your favorites and predictions.

Monday's Words of Wisdom

Fellow Torontonian, Corey Atad, who writes at Movie Mezzanine has discussed the responsibility of documentarians to stick to facts in their films in a piece titled 'Honesty in Documentary'. The discussion is prompted by his experience with Searching For Sugar Man after he found a number of details were omitted from the film. I'm writing about it because no piece this year has changed my opinion of a film as much Corey's has. I simply cannot look at Sugar Man the same way anymore.

In essence, there is nothing wrong with being innovative in documentary cinema. It is appreciated, in fact. John Grierson, one of the earliest pioneers of the form, referred to his own aesthetics as the "creative treatment of actuality." Corey mentions examples of other films that present their story creatively, bringing up Waltz With Bashir as a great example, but he's asking whether that type of creative control over the material is allowed extend to the facts therein.

"Anytime we walk into a film we are making an implicit agreement. If I go see a fictional film I expect that it will be a fiction. I suspend my disbelief and allow the story to do what it wants. When I walk into a documentary, that agreement is different. There is an implicit expectation that no matter how much slant or bias or editorial influence is being had on the subject, at the very least the film is presenting factual information as accurately as possible. Sometimes accuracy is difficult to achieve, but distorting facts is a no-no."

When I watched the film myself, I was quite taken with it. I find it heartbreaking and heartwarming in equal measure, but I was quite surprised at how Rodriguez remained completely unfazed by his new found success. Though the omissions aren't huge, the fact that Rodriguez had been aware of his success in places like Australia explains why he wasn't at all shocked by the warm reception he received in South Africa.In Corey's words: "The fact is, Rodriguez was not as obscure as the film claims, nor was he as difficult to find as the documentary implies. It’s not an outright lie, but it is a lie by omission, and the information was clearly left out in order to juice the drama in Rodriguez’ story. It’s still an incredible story, just not as incredible as the filmmakers would have you believe going on their account alone."

I can't help but feel cheated a bit, having realized that my emotional reaction to the film wasn't entirely merited, and I've slowly and quietly slipped Sugar Man out of my top 20 films. You can read Corey's piece here. I couldn't recommend it enough.

Next up is perennial favourite, Nick Prigge of Cinema Romantico, who has summed up the narratives overtaking this year's Oscar race in a 100% accurate, 137% hilarious piece titled 'Emerging Oscar Storylines.' I don't agree with his predictions entirely: I refuse to believe Argo can win best picture until I see Affleck jumping up and down on the Oscar stage with a little golden man in his hands and I don't think Tommy Lee Jones is a lock. Then again, I've predicted both of those categories exactly like him, so what the hell is up with my disingenuous disagreement? I am, however, entirely consumed by the idea that Michael Haneke may have an agenda of snuff films.

"The story of Best Actor is that there is NO story. Daniel Day Lewis will win. He will win because he floats in the regal ether above the pedantic stories of the Academy. Hype rolls off of him. Backlash is frightened to death of him. Twitter is powerless to stop him. Daniel Day Lewis is Daniel Fucking Day Lewis and that is why he will win."

You can read his piece here, and if you don't, you deserve the same twitter hate attack as Anne Hathaway.

The Case for Argo

The Golden Globes came and went and Ben Affleck's Argo landed another double win for Best Director/Best Picture after doing the exact same at the BFCA. The two groups, as you may well be aware, have no overlap with the Academy in membership but we all know that every little and not so little award can have a bearing on how the big show turns out at the end and I have a feeling in a few weeks' time we might still be considering the Globes as a vital moment in this season.

In recent years, the Globe winner hasn't lined up with the Oscar champ as often as one might think. Most awards pundits will assume that this year will turn out to be another one where the two can't agree on a winner, seeing as both Argo and Les Misérables have missed out on best director nominations at the Oscars. But the industry good will that has been accumulating for Ben Affleck and his film since its TIFF premiere seems to be growing every day. Of course, not every week will be as packed with announcements as this one was, so there will be a lot of calm before the storm. Lincoln (warmly endorsed by former U.S. president Bill Clinton during last night's ceremony) and Life of Pi (boosted by its surprising haul of 11 Oscar nominations) will surely be capitalizing on that silent period. The former will also surely benefit from at least one SAG award in the process.

It's important to consider that no film has won the top prize at the Oscars without a nomination for its director since Driving Miss Daisy way back in 1989. But records are meant to be broken and this season is such a strange one. If any film ever wanted to jump in and steal the show unexpectedly, this would be the year to do it. And Argo seems to have all the ingredients of a surprise winner.

Oscar's Documentary Race Cut to 15 Films

Over at The Film Experience, I've looked at the 15 films that have been shortlisted by the Academy in the documentary category. It's a list that, as usual, leaves off several critically acclaimed titles and proves that the new voting system hasn't really made that big an impact on the race yet. Of my three favourite documentaries this year, The Gatekeepers has made the cut (my review), Queen of Versailles (which I just saw) has not and Stories We Tell (my review) was not eligible. The most endearing surprise is the inclusion of Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb's This is Not a Film, which you may remember was one of the best films of 2011 in my opinion.

You can read my thoughts on the whole list here. And please join in with your comments!

Oscar Horrors: Aliens

Oscar Horrors, Nathaniel Rogers's amazing series on horror films nominated by the Academy, wrapped up yesterday as October ended. I contributed to the series twice, the first of which I already linked to. (Dogtooth, nominated for Best Foreign Language Film)

My second column was about the Oscar-winning Visual Effects of James Cameron's Aliens. It's a prime example of nuts and bolts effects, mostly achieved through mechanics and in-camera editing techniques. Have a read and chime in with your thoughts!

Oscar Horrors: Dogtooth

Over at The Film Experience, I've joined in on Oscar Horrors, Nathaniel's group series on horror films that have been nominated for Oscars. My first contribution is Dogtooth, which was nominated for a the Best Foreign Language Film award two years ago in what remains one of the Academy's most shocking decisions. There's more to come later in October when I take you back to the 80s for the nominated visual effects of a major blockbuster, but for now, have a read on why Dogtooth is one of my favourite nominations in recent years. You may also remember how highly I ranked the film back in 2010. It's a decision I don't regret in retrospect.

Iran will not defend its Oscar statue

I had the first episode of my new series on Iranian cinema all edited and ready to post, but it feels strange to write about Iranian cinema today and ignore the big news. The Iranian government has decided to boycott the Oscars in an act of protest to the release of Innocenceof Muslims.

It’s painful, to be honest; particularly because it had been announced earlier that Reza Mirkarimi’s A Cube of Sugar was going to be Iran’s representative in the category this year. It’s a gentle, thoughtful film by one of the greatest directors of Iranian cinema's new generation. I’ve always rooted for his success since his exquisite first feature, Under the Moonlight, and I’d have loved to see him take another stab at this. (Iran’s 2005 submission was Mirkarimi’s best work to date, So Close, So Far, which is criminally overlooked on the international scene.) This of course comes on the back of the country's first win for Asghar Farhadi’s A Separation, so Iran becomes one of only a handful of countries not to attempt to defend its statue. (Film Actually’s Shane pointed me to South Africa and Bosnia who didn’t submit films after Tsotsi and No Man’s Land, respectively. If you know of more examples let me know in the comments.)

Reza Kianian in A Cube of Sugar

Mirkarimi and his film aside, I just can’t see how the decision to boycott the Oscars helps any of parties involved. Why deprive the Iranian film community of the chance to show its best work on the world’s greatest stage? It doesn’t seem like a trade off, just a lose-lose situation. If the reason for this boycott is that Iranians feel insulted by Innocence of Muslims, wouldn’t a worthy film in response send a better message to the world than simply boycotting the Oscars and leaving the scene altogether? And in any case, Innocent of Muslims is absolutely asinine but responding to it at all, whether in the form of a boycott or more aggressively, with riots and violence and shootings and killings as we've seen in other Muslim countries in the aftermath of its "release" is even more...stupid. If you don’t like the film, don’t watch it and move on. This type of reactionary approach only validates it. Besides, I can guarantee you that before the ceremony is even held, barely anyone will remember the name of this "film".

As for A Cube of Sugar – which, by the way, stars my favourite Iranian actor of all time, Reza Kianian - well, it was not A Separation, but it had a decent shot, believe it or not. It’s exactly the type of film that older voters in this category welcome with open arms and it’s a heck of lot of better than some of the recent winners. But alas, Iranians will have to wait another year.

A Look at Oscar's Live Action Short Nominees

In the same vein as the animated short nominees, which I reviewed here, I'm back at The Film Experience with a look at the year's best live action short nominees. Reviews and predictions for all five films await you! Have a read and chime in with your thoughts!

Ciaran Hinds in The Shore

A Look at Oscar's Animated Short Nominees

Over at The Film Experience, I've written my short reviews and final predictions on the Animated Short Film category at the Oscars. They're an interesting bunch, if a little on the underwhelming side. But there are at least three films in there completely worth your time. So head over and have a read, and if you have the chance to catch them in theatres, please do!

Pixar's La Luna

Does Oscar think women are better supporting performers?

While you may think that Steve Carell (Little Miss Sunshine), Tommy Lee Jones (No Country for Old Men) or James Franco (Milk) gave performances as strong as their Oscar-nominated co-stars, the academy looked the other way. Women, as it turns out, don't have to worry too much about their co-stars. For the fourth year in a row, two women from the same film (The Help) were nominated for best supporting actress.
Head over to The Film Experience, where I've looked at some statistics and pondered why this may be. And Nathaniel's added pie charts! Yayy!

Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer in The Help

Oscar Predictions: December

With a majority of the precursor nominations now behind us, we have a clearer image of how the Oscar race will pan out. There are some potential nominees whom I’d assumed had faded but are back in the race. Then there are films and individuals who just cemented their status. And, of course, there are some who just failed to make any impact.

Nominees?

Best Picture

1. The Artist

2. Hugo

3. The Descendants

4. The Help

5. War Horse

6. Midnight in Paris

7. Moneyball

8. Tree of Life

Potential Additions

9. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

10. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Alternate

Drive

I’ve predicted eight nominees though Tree of Life missed on both Globe and SAG nominations. I have a hunch that the film’s fervent supporters will help it slide in probably even ahead of Midnight in Paris or Moneyball but I don’t know how many of them there is in the academy. Furthermore, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has received an extremely quiet and incredibly tepid reaction response from the critics. That didn’t stop The Reader from getting a nomination but holocaust and 9/11 are incomparable properties when it comes to the Oscar race. Finally, Drive has done well with the critics, which makes me wonder if more people will put it at their number one spot ahead of the likes Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

Best Director

1. Martin Scorsese (Hugo)

2. Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

3. Alexander Payne (The Descendants)

4. Terrence Malick (Tree of Life)

5. Steven Spielberg (War Horse)

Alternate

Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris)

The top three are set. The directors’ branch will get behind Malick’s grand vision, leading me to think that the fifth spot will a battle between the other two veteran American masters. Refn has been embraced by the critics but I don’t think academy members will put him on their ballots ahead of his more well-known competitors. Daldry, who has been nominated for a 100% of his films so far, will probably have to suffer a blow to his perfect record this year.

Acting, technical and foreign categories after the jump:

Michelle Williams in My Week with Marilyn. She won the lion's share of the critics' awards.

The Documentary Dilemma

Ever since I saw Jose and Pilar, the Portuguese documentary film submitted for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, I've been wondering whether the voters in that branch have it in them to go there and nominate a documentary. The question's also been on my mind about the editing of Senna - which you might remember is one of my favourite films of the year - and Chris King's chances at getting a nomination in that category. 

I imagine the answer is a no in both cases, but anyway, over at The Film Experience, I've given the academy four suggestions to nominate docuementaries in non-documentary categories, because the more we talk about it, the likelier it is for voters to hear us! Have a read and join the conversation!

Scene from Pina, Germany's submission for best foreign film

My Top 7 Choices for Hosting the Oscars

The shenanigans about this year’s Oscar ceremony happened way too quickly for me to get to comment on. The gist of it is: Brett Ratner, the producer said some stupid things; he apologized and later resigned; Eddie Murphy, the host, also pulled out; Brian Grazer was announced as the new producer.

By the time I finish typing this Grazer might have brought in a new host. Anyway, I’m kinda bummed that Murphy left. I don’t remember his glory days as a stand-up but the clips I've seen here and there still make me laugh out of context. And the writing team seemed inventive and funny. In any case, it’s all over now and Grazer is hard at work – I assume – trying to get a new host.

I’m not opposed to most of the names being thrown around the blogosphere: The Wiig/McCarthy duo, Billy Crystal, Jim Carrey, Hugh Jackman, or even the hilarious but admittedly far-fetched idea of The Muppets. I can see myself enjoying a show hosted by any of them. Ben Stiller isn’t up there for me since I don’t really like the bits he’s done on stage in the past couple of years but he’s talented in several different areas, so what do I know?

With that in mind, here’s a list of my top seven choices for hosting the Oscars. From my mouth to Brian Grazer’s ears: 

Neil Patrick Harris opening the 82nd Academy Awards

7- Neil Patrick Harris

The obvious choice. He’ll get to host the show at some point I’m sure, so why not now? He’s charming; he’s funny; he can put on a show; he can sing and dance; plus, he’s been there before with a few musical numbers and he’s successfully hosted the Tony’s and the Emmy’s. I can’t see a single person objecting to him.

 

6- Stephen Colbert

His humour might be a little too edgy and political for Oscar’s taste but he’s arguably the funniest man on TV. Sometimes outsiders are better suited for this job than showbiz folks and if the producers want to get a non-actor, who better than Colbert?